Leeds University

Academic Appeal

Grounds

• Mitigating circumstances: relevant mitigating circumstances affected your performance, and you have a good reason for not notifying the examiners sooner. A “good reason” means circumstances beyond your control prevented earlier disclosure; embarrassment or unwillingness to disclose is not normally sufficient.
• Mitigating circumstances not properly considered: you previously notified the examiners of mitigating circumstances or another disruption to the assessment process, but believe the examiners or examining body did not give sufficient consideration to that information.
• Unfair or improper assessment: the assessment was conducted unfairly or improperly, or the assessment of your achievement was biased.
• Procedural irregularity: a material procedural irregularity occurred in the processing of your assessment or results. This means an irregularity with significant consequences that affected the published result.
• Unsatisfactory supervision: supervision of a Final Year Project or dissertation was unsatisfactory. An appeal will not normally be accepted where it would have been reasonable to raise the issue or make a complaint earlier during your candidature.

Stage 1 - Initial Review

• Deadline: submit the appeal within 20 working days of publication of the formal assessment results. Late appeals are only accepted exceptionally where there is an evidenced valid reason for the delay.
• The student is responsible for providing sufficient supporting information. Relevant supporting information should be provided within two weeks of submitting the case.
• The Student Cases Team conducts an initial review and may reject an appeal where it does not disclose a valid ground or is simply a challenge to academic judgment.
• If the appeal is eligible to proceed, the relevant School is asked to respond.
• The School normally provides its response within 20 working days.
• The student is normally given 10 working days to provide final comments.
• Where the School accepts the appeal and proposes an appropriate remedy, the matter may be resolved without a full hearing.

Stage 2 - Formal Consideration

• A Panel or Committee may consider the appeal and may uphold the proposed remedy, dismiss the appeal or refer the matter for further consideration.
• The Committee's consideration is investigative rather than adversarial and decisions are made on the balance of probabilities.
• The student may attend, make a statement and be accompanied by one supporter.
• A written decision is normally issued within 10 working days.

Stage 3 - Review

• A student may request a review within 10 working days of the Stage 2 decision.
• The review may be requested where:
  • the decision was unreasonable;
  • there was a procedural deficiency that materially prejudiced the case; or
  • there is new evidence which could not reasonably have been provided earlier and there is a good reason for this.
• The review is not a rehearing of the appeal. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may uphold the decision, vary it or refer the matter back for reconsideration.

Mitigating Circumstances

Coursework Extensions

• An extension should normally be requested by the original coursework deadline. Retrospective extensions are not normally granted.
• Students may self-certify medical grounds for an extension of up to 7 calendar days.
• Other applications require supporting evidence, which should be provided with the application or within 14 calendar days.
• Extensions are normally available for up to 14 days, or 28 days for specified clinical programmes.
• Extensions are not automatic and may be refused where an extension would not be appropriate.

Additional Consideration

• Additional Consideration applies where circumstances significantly affect an assessment, including preparation for, attendance at or performance in an examination.
• If circumstances prevent you from attending an examination, notify your School as soon as possible.
• If you become unwell during an examination, notify the invigilator immediately.
• If you sit an examination but your performance is significantly affected by mitigating circumstances, you may still apply for Additional Consideration.
• The relevant School sets the application deadline and considers the circumstances through its Special Circumstances Committee and assessment processes.
• Mitigation does not directly change a mark. It may instead result in an additional attempt, additional time, alternative assessment arrangements or other permitted measures.
• Medical self-certification is permitted for coursework extensions of up to 7 calendar days.
• Other mitigation applications require supporting evidence demonstrating the circumstances and, where relevant, their impact on the assessment.
• Evidence should be provided with the application.

Circumstances that do not normally qualify

Circumstances will not normally qualify where they were foreseeable or preventable, are not sufficiently significant, are unsupported by evidence, or do not demonstrate a relevant impact on the assessment.

Academic Misconduct

Initial Assessment

• Cases are determined on the balance of probabilities. Intention or knowledge is not necessarily required.
• Relevant factors in determining the penalty may include the nature and extent of the misconduct, previous offences, academic-integrity development and mitigating circumstances.
• Evidence may include drafts, previous versions of work, GenAI outputs, proofreading annotations and other evidence relevant to authorship.
• Mitigation may reduce a penalty but does not excuse misconduct. Additional Consideration does not apply to an assessment component where misconduct has been proven.

Stage 1 - School Investigation

• The student is given notice of the allegation, the evidence relied upon and the opportunity to attend a meeting.
• The student may explain how the work was created, admit or deny the allegation and provide relevant mitigation.
• If misconduct is not proven, the case ends and the assessment proceeds through the normal marking process.
• If misconduct is admitted or proven, the School may impose an appropriate penalty or refer the case to the Committee on Applications.
• A written decision is normally issued within 10 working days.

Stage 1 Review - School Penalty

• A student may request a review of a School-level penalty within 10 working days.
• The grounds are:
  • the decision was unreasonable;
  • a procedural deficiency materially prejudiced the case; or
  • new evidence has become available which could not reasonably have been provided earlier and there is a good reason for this.
• Disagreement with the decision alone is not a sufficient ground for review.

School Level Penalties

• Penalties may include:
  • a warning;
  • removal or redaction of material;
  • a mark of zero;
  • failure of the assessment or module;
  • a capped resit or reassessment; and
  • academic-integrity training.
• Where a reassessment is required to expunge the original attempt, the original attempt receives no mark or credit and the student must submit entirely new work.

Stage 2 - Committee

• Cases may be referred to the Committee where they involve, for example:
  • cheating in examinations;
  • serious or repeated misconduct; or
  • a penalty beyond the School's powers.
• The student may attend, make representations and be accompanied by one supporter.
• The Committee determines whether misconduct is proven on the balance of probabilities and, if so, determines the appropriate penalty.
• Penalties may include:
  • failure of an assessment or module;
  • a zero or capped mark;
  • loss of reassessment opportunities;
  • repeating credits or a year of study;
  • reduction in classification or removal of credits; and
  • exclusion from the University.
• A written decision is normally issued within 10 working days.

Stage 3 - Pro-Vice-Chancellor Review

• A student may request a review within 10 working days of the Committee's decision.
• The grounds are:
  • the decision was unreasonable;
  • a procedural deficiency materially prejudiced the case; or
  • new evidence was unavailable earlier and there is a good reason for not providing it sooner.
• The review is not a rehearing. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may uphold the decision, vary it or refer the case back for reconsideration.